Originally posted by Erlkonig
That's okay, my reasoning is based on daily consultations with a tea leaf reader and the insightful editorials published in the Weekly World News.
I was hoping you'd try to justify your claim that non-Christians would prefer dealing with Christians (over non-Christians, as far as I can tell) had they a deeper "spiritual and moral" understanding of the religion. I spent seven years in a Jesuit school - maybe that counts for you, or not. But for me, a person's religion rarely ever figures into wanting to deal with them or not - exceptions being like a certain minority of Christians who see biology class as a stepping stone for introducing their religion into public schools.
Then you completely misunderstand my challenge since no such claim was made. I asserted that if Chairboy preferred non-Christians over Christians when it came to professional and personal matters of life and death (or even serious issues that weren't life threatening) based soley on their faith and belief or lack thereof then I think his rationale is flawed. If the person in question knows their science/art/profession and their spiritual belief does not run counter to it .... and, in fact, their spiritual teachings enhance their moral stance when dealing with their fellow man, then why should he use their spiritual belief as a basis for mistrust?
Bear in mind here that Muslims and Jews share the fundamental Christian belief in the origin of the world/universe/humanity and that other religions have their own different ideas that aren't in keeping with either the big bang theory or Darwinism. Do doctors, scientists and other professionals that have these various beliefs also deserve such aversion or is it just Christians that qualify? Should one prefer a person who is just Christian/Jew/Muslim/Hindu/Buddist in name and not belief? What does that say about their true character? Do only atheists deserve trust or respect for their knowledge and ability?
Christians who take their discipleship seriously have proven to benefit humanity every bit as much as members of other persuasions. Such an anti-Christian general bias serves none. You claim you don't use that as a basis yet you felt obligated to to speak up. Then again, you also seem confused on my stance. Hopefully this part of my post made it clearer.
As far as making it a point to keep Christian beliefs and viewpoints out of education, doesn't that sound just a little bit more like an anti-Christian agenda and less like a well-rounded education? After all, I never advocated the elimination of Darwinism or the big bang theory from the system. I will say that all theories in public school should be given an equal amount of creedence (without undue bias for or against one or the other) but to eliminate the Christian perspective yet allow all others is every bit as much an attempt to impress your own beliefs and morals upon the young without allowing them to form their own as it is your claim of Christians desiring the same.
Whether you seem to realize it or not, you have an anti-Christian bias that makes itself too readily apparent at the slightest
perception, on your part, of pro-Christian/anti-anything else rhetoric. Was it your disillusionment after your seven years of Jesuit training that may have made you overly sensitive to this particular issue, you think? Not that that's truly the case but we both know that intensive religious training doesn't neccesarily result in one being a true disciple of Christ (or even result in an intimate knowledge of spiritual truths). Many a former priest can tell you that. Some current ones can if they can trust you to keep
thier confessions in confidence. Christianity is no more immune to hypocrisy than any other religion, belief or philosophical claim. But to brand any and all of a particular belief as hypocrits based on your personal dealings in the past certainly seems like you're harboring unresolved issues.
